Several known prior art systems allow a provider of a service that is delivered through a phone call to charge a customer for the cost of the service as well as the cost of the call. These value-added services, e.g., 900 number services, are designed for mass calling of a service provider's number where each calling party is billed for the cost of the call and the cost of the service. Because the customer initiates the call, the customer provides authorization for the cost of the call and cost of the service at the beginning of the call. For such a service, the telephone company directly bills the customer for the cost of the call and the cost of the service. The telephone company then reimburses the service provider for the value of the service provided to the customer.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,003,584, issued in the name of Banyacar and assigned to AT&T on Mar. 26, 1991, is an example of an enhanced value-added 900 number service. This system bills a calling party for the cost of a call and the cost of the service through either the automatic number identification (ANI) indicating the call originating number or a credit card number provided by the calling party. The service provider can define and modify the rate of or the total cost of the call while the call is in progress. The cost of the call and the cost of the service provided are then billed to the calling party. The assessed service costs are based on the time and the billing rate of the call or based on a flat per call charge.
These types of prior art systems suffer from several shortcomings. First, these systems cannot bill a customer for the cost of the service alone. These systems all assume that the service is delivered by a call for which charges must be assessed. Second, the cost of the service provided is assessed as a function of the call duration or the per call cost. These systems cannot bill for services that are provided independently from the call itself. Finally, these systems assume the customer initiates the call to the service provider; these systems cannot allow the service provider to call their customers and charge the cost of the service and/or the cost of the call.
Another class of known prior art systems attempt to include the cost of a service in the telephone bill independently from the call duration or the per call cost. Specifically, U.S. Pat. No. 5,148,474, issued to Haralambopouos et al. on Sep. 15, 1992, is an example of one such system. In this system, a customer can call a retailer and order goods and/or services from the retailer. The retailer can then establish a second connection to a network wherein this second connection is billed at a predetermined rate. This system requires the service provider to have access to several value-added numbers to account for the different possible costs of the service provider's goods and/or services. In other words, the service provider will dial one or more unique value-added numbers for each unique price of the goods and/or services so that the total charges for the value-added numbers equal the cost of the goods and/or services.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,179,548, issued to Tsumura on Jan. 12, 1993, is an example of a similar prior art system. In this system, the service is provided only at the user's physical location where special dedicated telephone line is connected to the service provider's equipment. When a customer accesses the service provider's equipment, the telephone company is called over the dedicated telephone line connected to the service provider's equipment; the user is billed through the telephone company for the cost of the service in an amount equal to the charges assessed for the dedicated line. A digital karaoke machine installed on a user's premises is a typical embodiment of the Tsumura system. Every time the karaoke machine is used, a connection is established through the dedicated line and the user is billed by the telephone company for the phone call. The karaoke service provider is then reimbursed by the telephone company. Multiple dedicated lines having varying billing rates may be necessary to handle different billing amounts to generate the desired composite bill for the use of the karaoke system.
These known service billing systems which do not bill as a function of the call suffer from several shortcomings. In these systems, the service provider's equipment must be located on the user's premises or the service provider must establish a second connection. In either case, the billing of the service is based upon the billing rate associated with an unnecessary telephone connection where the assessed charges are calculated as a function of that unnecessary call duration or per call fee.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,381,467 issued in the name of Rosinski et al. and issued on its face to AT&T Corp., is another type of prior art system which allows the cost of the call to be split between the calling party and the called party according to a preauthorized arrangement. This system, however, cannot bill a customer for the cost a value-added service delivered through or ordered during the call. Furthermore, the billing of the call is based on divisible time periods of the call during. This system cannot bill for services that are provided independently from the call itself.